muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Scarecroe
Grover's Jobs Hey, Scott. As you may have noticed, re Category talk: Grover Sketches, we're attempting to re-organize those ala Ernie and Bert Sketches, by theme rather than chronological (several of those pages were utterly empty anyway). I created Grover the Assistant, and there's several which could be classed as Grover Lectures/Demonstrations, but the majority are Grover's Jobs. I like the way you'd re-organized that page, but it also seems worthwhile to move those sketches. I honestly don't know how to fix that. A "Grover's Job Sketches" title as distinct from dealing with the occupations in general? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :Those aren't sketches. That's a list of Grover Variants, a la Kermit and Piggy. They're meant to link tot he sketch pages. — Scott (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ::I know that. But thing is, we're trying to get rid of the season by season set-up, just as you did with Ernie and Bert. That's why I'm asking you. Unless we do it individually (Grover the Salesman, etc.) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) The Best Thanksgiving Ever Very nice! I really enjoyed the picture set you posted for it. George B. (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) :Thanks! That page was overdue for some screenshots. — Scott (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut What is it that compels people to create entries for non-existant Muppets and series? Especially when it apparently involves picking and choosing and re-arranging from actual articles. That seems like work, really. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :I find it amusing. Not only the content, but the fact that they spent so much time on it and it only takes a second to revert or delete. — Scott (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah. Though I personally found the lemur guy more amusing. Who apparently was obsessed with ''Zoboomafoo, and Madagascar, and somehow blended that into the Fraggles list, so you had entries for World's Oldest Lemur and Storyteller Lemur and so on. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :::Oh, and if you're keeping tabs, another Buffy/''Angel'' connection. I don't know if we can justify a page for him, but I'm adding an entry for The Indian in the Cupboard (not in the credits, but sufficient evidence from their website, official production notes blurbs, and Julianne Buescher points that the Creature Shop handled one scene, with a rat in a ball), which featured in the cast Vincent Kartheiser (Connor from "Angel."). So do with that what you will. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Whoah, that's awesome! I had no idea he was in that. I should rent that -- I don't think I've ever seen the whole thing. — Scott (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) People and Disambiguation Hey. Buffy (disambiguation) reminds me of one of the issues I had with Kermit (disambiguation). Do we want to start including real people in disambiguation pages? I'm very iffy on that myself. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :I don't see why not. Someone who's looking for Buffy, may not understand that Buffy Sainte-Marie didn't play herself on TV. I would agree to moving her from the gallery to See Also if that would suit better. — Scott (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::That one does make a little more sense to me than the Kermit Love thing. But that opens up a Bob (disambiguation), when it gets made, to including Bob McGrath, Bob Hope, Bob Sinclar, etc. Or expanding George with George Wendt, George Lucas, George Burns, George Bloomfield or even Phyllis George. Though like with most things on the Wiki, there doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule. I just want your opinion on it, in case it actually gets that far. I still think Kermit (disambiguation) seems more like a neat gallery than a real disambiguation page, and it bugs me to have Kermit Love and Kermit Texas in there with Forg etc., but that's no big deal, I guess. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :::I don't think it's a big deal to mix real people with characters on a disambig page. The point of the page is just to list the article titles that might otherwise be confused. It doesn't "equate" the article subjects. The question I have is why Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a "See also" on the Buffy page, and not up with the rest of the entries. -- Danny (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::::I dunno. Because Buffy the Vampire Slayer isn't directly Muppet related? — Scott (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::::I guess that's the point. I don't see Kermit Love being easily confused with Kermit, or any of the above Georges and Bobs. If it's limited in cases like this where the names, as applied to people, are uncommon, I'm mainly fine with it, I guess. It just would seem sort of excessive to do it with anything else. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :::::I think the tag needs to be employed more on articles that redirect to a mainpage (like Kermit). Like stated here, the disambiguation pages on this wiki are not being used properly. --Cantus Rock 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::Can we re-open the discussion there rather than talking about it here? — Scott (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::NO!!!!11!!!1!! :::::::...of course. :) I wasn't even really suggesting reopening the discussion here or there, more commenting on this issue being raised when the pages themselves aren't being put to proper use in the first place. --Cantus Rock 01:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Hurrah Turrah The counters are a bit off, but I think we've about 65 to go! Meet Mighty Mongoose, another superhero, and though I wasn't sure if it went too far, I had fun writing up Mo Momo. And I think that's it for me for tonight. Oh, and before I return Nightmares & Dreamscapes to Netflix (doesn't help the 12k push, but worth doing), would you mind if I took out the poster from that page and replaced it with the series' title card? Since it refers to the series as a whole, and our interest is in the one episode, and this way, I could squeeze in the episode title card and a screengrab or two as well. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :That sounds good to me! — Scott (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Muppets Tonight Great work! Do you have DVDs of both seasons? Because while it won't help our article count, we need images of the two Thor, God of Thunder sketches, since for some reason, each one featured a different puppet for Thor (one looked like it might have been full-bodied, but I couldn't say for sure). And The Network President from Episode 102: Garth Brooks would be a worthwhile addition. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :Your timing is impeccable. I was just watching a Thor sketch. — Scott (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::Hey, do we keep Librarian (Sesame Street) under that name or not? Since it's no longer about just one character, and if need be, the fact that Ernest Pleth once played a librarian can easily be added there. I think that works better as a list of Librarians than Librarian. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :::You're probably right. I didn't realize that that was Ernest Pleth when I made the entry. — Scott (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Yeah. In fact, the only thing that keeps it from being Same Puppet, Different character (different performer, different voice) is Nigel refers to him as Ernest. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Batman I sourced everything (and specified the folder and archive stuff; when I feel like it later, I'll probably create a page for the CTW Archives, with links to the finding aide and so on, so anyone else with the opportunity and inclination can dive in). I also split up the segments (the document Danny sent us includes three appearances, with the crossing the street segment numbered first), but it looks messy. A table would work best, so as to include the episode appearances, but we only have on image, and I don't know if it would throw off the rest of the article. So, if you can, help! I also assumed that the "clean and dirty" segment is the same one as the crooks with dirty windows (an assumption, true, but a logical one, I think, unless it's ever proved otherwise, since two clean/dirty segments with Batman seems unlikely). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :Oh, cool! I didn't even see the other ones in that document. I tried not to spend too much time with it because I want to get some Muppets Tonight characters done. I don;t think we need a table at Batman though. For the amount of information and graphics that we have at current, I think the page looks great. — Scott (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::Cool, if you're fine with it, I'm fine with it. As our resident superhero devotee, I just wanted to let you know. And I added three more connections from recent additions (my favorite may be Vin Burnham, because how much genre fan street-cred must you get from designing the Batsuit and being related to a Doctor Who guest, plus Creature Shop stuff?) -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :::That's amazing! Connections are some of my favorite parts of the wiki. — Scott (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC) CBS Interview Hi Scott, Id love to get a copy of that CBS Workshop interview. Got any ideas how I can get ahold of it? A trade maybe? - Warrick 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::You around? -- Warrick 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :::Yeah, send me an email. — Scott (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Anniversary Goal Well, Danny's skepticism aside, we are now exactly 147 articles away from 12,000. The hardest part for me is trying to assemble a list of gaps that need filling and that I can fill. I don't know if I can keep up the pace, with final papers and applications as priorities, but if I can manage at least a couple more days like this, with the usual additions from other people, and if not too many pages are deleted, I think we might still reach 12,000 articles by December 5! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :Yay, I noticed you going like a bat out of hell on gap fillers yesterday. Is there anything I can do? I tried to think last night -- after logging off -- is there a Creature Shop movie that I could be farming for new pages? Let me know what you think. After your work over the past two days, I really think we can do it if we really try! — Scott (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC) ::There's plenty of Creature Shop to farm. Frankly, at this point, it's easier than filling in Muppet characters, since we've almost reached capacity there (though there are still some blanks on Fraggle Rock one-shot/background characters, and Muppets Tonight but the latter's harder to screengrab quickly). I'm finishing up Gulliver and Alice, also so I can return both to Netflix, and MirrorMask is also on my list. What Creature Shop movies do you have access to right now? We still need a page for The Adventures of Pinocchio (IMDb entry). If there's anything remaining on The Bear, that wouldn't hurt either. Oh, and Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. The BFI has full credits here (all the Creature Shop details are near the bottom; apparently they handled the troll and some of the animals). Really, anything helps. Actually, I've been thinking of putting up a list, in sandbox or something, combining some of the more doable items from Wanted pages with the items on my own list, both as a way for myself to keep track and so you and anyone else can add and know what gaps are there. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :::Well, 132 to go. I haven't been quite as prolific today (only 21 new pages), but I'm reasonably confident we can knock 32 off tomorrow, with the contributions of others. Plus, I took a break from gap filling to work on Muppeteers in Non-Henson Acting Roles. Still experimenting with the galleries (did some replacement on Frank Oz, but with the others, I think the text and the image are both still needed), and added several Kevin Clash roles from Captain Kangaroo. I limited myself to only two false moustaches, but I have a lot more (arrived today, from E-bay, two tapes for 4 bucks). No wonder he limits his on-camera cameos these days. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Sweet. I won't have much time for the wiki until tomorrow night, but I should be able to get some Muppets Tonight characters done. Hopefully bring us up to 11,900. — Scott (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Nighttime Very nice, I like seeing that. By the way, ebcite is brilliant. That's a great way to handle that situation. -- Danny (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, I think this is really going to work out nicely. These pages can be really useful now. — Scott (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) ::Yay! It takes us a while, but we always figure it out. The wiki wins. -- Danny (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :::Hey, for the first time in a while, our page count actually went down! It's worth it, though -- the new system is going to be so much better. -- Danny (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Yeah, we only lost around 30 pages. We'll get that back in a week. We're cutting it close for 12,000 by our one year anniversary. — Scott (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::::That would be nice -- I'm rooting for 12K too -- but I don't think it's going to happen. 200 new articles in two weeks... I'm not seeing it happen, unless somebody gets very busy over Thanksgiving weekend. -- Danny (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::By the way, what's up with the space at the bottom of some of the pages? -- Danny (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::You mean the ones marked "intentional space for anchored links"? — Scott (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, those. I have two questions. a) What does that mean? b) Is that gonna be there forever? -- Danny (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Trying clicking on an anchored link in any article. It doesn't work if there isn't enough room at the bottom of the article and therefor makes any of the reference links useless. That's why I didn't like them when they started to be used here, but there wasn't much way around it. — Scott (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::I'm not sure what you're talking about. They work fine. I just took the extra space off Ernie and Bert Sketches: Expeditions, clicked on the reference link, and it took me to the bottom of the page. Maybe it doesn't work in Opera? -- Danny (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) No, it doesn't work. When you click on this link, note how it takes you to the second reference in the list, not the first one. — Scott (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :Or, a better example at The_Muppet_Workshop#_note-3 — Scott (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::I agree that they don't work if you link them from other pages. But they work fine when you're on those pages. When I'm on The Muppet Workshop and I click on a reference, I get the correct reference. Why would somebody be linking from one page to another page's reference? -- Danny (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::If those break tags weren't on The Muppet Workshop and you clicked a reference link in the article, you wouldn't see the reference. You'd just be taken to the bottom of the page wheer you'd see a list of references. It's extra work to scroll back up and look at the number again, then scroll back down to find that number in the list. — Scott (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Oh, is that the issue? I actually don't see that as a problem at all. I figure if you click on a 3, then you remember that you're clicking on a 3. ::::I really don't like the extra space. I think it's off-putting and disorienting to click on the footnote and be taken to what is essentially a blank screen. You have to scroll back up anyway to keep reading the article -- and with the blank space, you always have to scroll down to see the category tags. It violates the format that applies to all the other pages. Can we discuss it with some other folks and see what they think? -- Danny (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::::Yeah, see what everyone else thinks at Current Events. — Scott (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::Of course, taking away the blank space will mean that you can't link directly to a sketch which happens to fall at the bottom of the page. And that's a feature I really don't want to lose. We have dozens of those links all over the wiki. — Scott (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::Can you give me an example? -- Danny (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Say I wanted to link to a sketch from an article. I might say, "some sketches, such as this one, have not aired in the US." Depending on your screen resolution, that links takes you to anywhere between "Identity Crisis" and somewhere in the middle of "Attracting Birds" ... unless the extra page breaks are in there. — Scott (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :I don't think that's a problem. You could just as easily say "some inserts, such as the sketch about Ernie and Bert pretending to be animals, have not aired in the US." That's better wiki writing anyway -- using "this one" as a link works for a talk page, but not a wiki article. :As for getting oriented on the page, I think it's much easier to process getting linked to the table and finding the item at the bottom of the page than it is to click a link and find that item and absolutely nothing else on the screen. I'd find that very disorienting, because it's unlike any other experience you would have clicking links. -- Danny (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::Regarding point 1, your way of writing the text is better, but the link still takes you to the wrong place. If a link is meant to take you to the Egypt sketch, it should take you to the Egypt sketch and not somewhere else on the article. It's confusing and disorienting. ::Regarding point two, I just disagree. Clicking a reference link should take you to that reference and not someplace else on the page. It's more work to find the reference when the link was supposed to do that for you. Otherwise, there's no point in useing the reference links at all, and we may as well just make a list under a "Sources" header. Because without the page breaks, that's what it is anyway. — Scott (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC) :::The point of using the references rather than a "Sources" list is that they're numbered. So if you click on 4, and it takes you to the Sources list, you look at #4 on the list. :::As far as what's more or less confusing, we might have to ask the other guys what they think. -- Danny (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Personally, I hate the kludge of extra whitespace at the bottom of an article. It makes people wonder "why is this here?", and really, we don't know how much whitespace any given viewer might need. However, it is also a popular solution to the well-known anchor-link problem. My instinct is to not bother with it, but the decision might depend on how often one needs to link to bottom-ward anchors on other pages. (I don't think it's worth the trouble for footnotes, personally, but the sketch pages are a different story.) Powers 21:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ::::I've never been a big fan of the whitespace, and part of the problem is it's not always easily understandable. Peter's asked me several times why Scott keeps adding whitespace. I had a vague notion of the reason, but nothing's been clearly stated, until now. It seems like there's two issues, though. One is the "sources" links, which doesn't seem like a big deal to me. We never link to them outside of the actual page (or at least, I've yet to see that). As Danny said, they're numbered, and for my money, a bigger problem with sources, which I've caught a few instances of and there's probably several that have gone undetected, is editors using the format but forgetting to add at the end, thus the links don't go *anywhere*. ::::The anchored links for individual sketches is a different story, and a tradeoff for converting so many pages to tables. With lists with subheadings, like Nobility or even Muppeteers in Non-Henson Acting Roles, one can link to a specific section using just a # to seperate the specific heading, and that's it. Simple, and as far as I can tell, unless that heading is removed, always works. With the tables, it's a bit different. It might help, though, if Scott could be specific at what screen resolutions it breaks. for myself, I *always* have a problem when images are placed beneath a heading, but the initial picture is longer. So, for me, that creates extra white space between the heading and the actual text, in contrast to when all images are stacked on the top, assuming they're the same size, in which case they neatly fit on the right side of the page. So, for anchored sketch links, which are in heavy use, maybe some Sandbox testing would be in order? To find out how to limit that space if possible, if it can be done, and just how many browsers/screen resolutions would create a problem in this way. Otherwise, we may need to either cut down on changing everything to the table formats if we expect to link to them, or find another way to section them. That's how I see it, anyway, without fully understanding the whole technical side of it. And I agree, this really should go to Current Events. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :::::I could deal with getting rid of the space for the sources, but I'm pretty adamant about space for linking to sketches. — Scott (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::I would be more okay with it if we could fill that space with something, rather than blank space. Maybe we could reconfigure those pages so that there's more text that goes under the table, or an extra gallery, or something. Just having blank space really irks me, and it looks like it's a mistake. -- Danny (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::If its absolutely necessary to have it, you could make an italic note similar to the one that appears in the HTML stating the extra space is intentional.. --Cantus Rock 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::::No, that's just sticking ugly on top of ugly. -- Danny (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::::(The blank space below is intentional, in order to accommodate anchored links) -- Doesn't look that ugly..I'd prefer the space be offed altogether but if its necessary, a small note wouldn't be a decent compromise? You could even drop the text size down if need be.. --Cantus Rock 04:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I think if we need a space at all, we could make a box that has Sesame Street Sketch Lists -- something with some little pictures in it, and then a list of sketches, like Ernie and Bert Apartment, Ernie and Bert Bathroom, Monsterpiece Theater, Waiter Grover, whatever. That way, the "blank space" would at least serve a navigation purpose. We could do the same with Muppet Show Sketches: Pigs in Space, Vet's Hospital, etc. -- Danny (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC) :I can come up with something like that. Let my wheels turn for a bit. — Scott (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ::Excellent. I thought that might tempt you. -- Danny (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Non Muppet Cameos Hey, Scott. I know you're busy with the Ernie and Bert situation (I really don't have anything to suggest, since I don't understand it either), but when you get a chance, I *really* need your thoughts on Muppeteers in Non-Henson Acting Roles re organization. I've tried putting the images, at our normal 300px, near the Muppet person's name, but that's proving a little lopsided, and once we get more than one image per performer, impossible. I'm not sure I just want to stick all the images at the bottom ala Miscellaneous Cameos either, though. Especially re Frank Oz, for whom we currently have three images (and since they're already double counted, I think they should be moved off of his page and added to the Acting Roles page; Jim in Into the Night should stay on his page, since it's more a cameo as a version of himself than an acting role, with the "Bernie" joke and all). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC) :How's that? Also, we don't have to repeat the info twice. If it's in the gallery, we should probably take it out of the list. — Scott (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ::By repeat, I was referring to stuff on Frank Oz Cameos also being on that page, which I intend to take out. With the galleries, I dunno. It works perfectly just having that on, say, Jerry Nelson Cameos, but I don't know if it's worth it to try to shoe-horn in the extra text to the galleries here, except in those cases where that's the only appearance, or we eventually get all of the images. Since I have them arranged chronologically, with details on medium, role, etc. Which would be thrown off in several cases (but might be a wiser course with, say, Don Sahlin). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) A Little Night Music I'm going to bed (I'll have to push us closer to 12,000 tomorrow, it looks like), but here's Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. If you're so inclined, you might be able to do a better job of the biography than I did. Enjoy! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) :That's awesome! I knew we had some music, but no idea that we had enough to support an article -- sweet! — Scott (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Scott's talk page archive *Muppet Wiki Talk Archives